Slashdot Mirror
Prince DMCAs YouTube To Block Radiohead Song
Enigma2175 writes "CNN is reporting that videos from the Coachella music festival showing Prince covering Radiohead's 'Creep' have been removed by Prince's label, NPG records. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, when told of Prince's action, said 'Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our... song.' No comment from YouTube or Prince yet. Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse." As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with the Interwebs.
Radiohead's ownership of the song's copyright, Prince's ownership of the performance copyright, and the video recorder's ownership of the recording copyright. Prince asked for it to be pulled on his claim. Radiohead could sue him if he didn't properly license their song, though.
Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder
So let me get this straight, some person or group of persons could go and put a claim on every video on Youtube now and they'd have to take them all down...since they're not required to verify the entity making the request? That seems a bit silly doesn't it? What's stopping someone from mass emailing them with requests for a huge chunk of videos?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I was going to mod this funny but when you feel you have to explain your own comment is a joke then it's no longer funny.
OCILLA, the part of the DMCA dealing with takedown notices, requires the copyright owner to make an affirmation under penalty of perjury. Perjury is more likely to be a crime than petty copyright infringement, which is far more often treated as a tort.
Disregard that, I'm a dumbass.
What stuns me was already that somebody at all understands it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Video being uploaded again in 5...4...3...2...
By 100 people now, instead of just one. Just out of spite.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
>he prohibited the standard arrangement of allowing photographers to shoot near the stage during the first three songs of his set.
As a photographer this pisses me off.
#1 the only people who really call this are old as fuck and want to preserve an image. If the standard pit access is closed then you are wrinkly as fuck and need TOTAL control over image. i.e. marched up to production office for the managers to review you pics and delete anything they don't like (as if you couldn't recover them). In this last year I've been surprised who has used this. Not rock'n'roll.
#2 annoying to be kicked out now when people less than 2 feet away at the front of the audience have kit slightly under yours and can snap away. yet they don't get booted out. this "3 songs you're out" is a 20th C anachronism from the time when it took money and investment to photograph gigs. I can't see many people asking for it, its a "bouncer" thing. They've always done it that way and they will continue in the face of it being obsolete.
#3 "3 songs you are out" is a pain in the arse when they let "fan club" members into the pit to photograph their lust target. they are all over the place with shit cameras getting in the professionals way.
You are the only one with the right attitude. Who cares where the song came from, if Prince wants to be a dick about this, why support him by fighting to keep the video up?
Prince is a has-been with a small man complex. Just leave him in the past and let him die alone.
I work for the IP department that would handle this if I worked for google, but I don't work for google.
DMCA takedowns are no-questions asked "Under perjury, I own this, remove it, NOW" legal letters that range from "I am sueing you for 10,000 euros for every 30 seconds it's visible" to "this person has something that only looks like mine, but I want it removed."
In the case of something that Prince has covered, he doesn't own the copyright on the original song, but does on the performance. So he could request it be removed.
I regularly see stuff from Prince's lawyers, who also do stuff for other independent artists, but it appears Prince is the only one that gets attention for it.
If it's wrong, send a counter notice, counter notices are valid in the US as long as the issue is about copyright. In which case be prepared to goto court and sue the otherguy.
What logic? I was merely pointing out that they actually are in England, and if anything I was trying to imply that they may indeed be beholden to more than just US law.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"Prince owns the performance he gave"
No. You and everyone else saying things that amount to this are wrong. Copyright applies to things that may be copied, which performances are not. You cannot hold a copyright on a performance. You can hold a copyright on a recording. You can take legal and/or technological steps to ensure nobody records your performance that doesn't assign you the copyright to that recording. But the performance and the recording of it are different things, and the performance cannot be copyrighted because it cannot be copied.
The words to a song can also be copied, and can be copyrighted. There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
I don't think they do, in entirety. Music is subject to compulsory licensing. Now, compulsory licensing may not have come up in this particular case, but the GPL and compulsory licensing are not compatible, so Radiohead licensing their work under the GPL wouldn't have the effect they think it would.
IANAL, and I don't claim to understand copyright law, either, but you can look up compulsory licensing on Wikipedia, which links to the relevant text of the copyright code. Of course, the code is interpreted by case law and such, so that's not enough to really "understand copyright", but that's all I've got, I'm afraid. Worse yet, I can't even assert that only US law applies, though in this case I think it's true.
Judging from the discussion here, most of the comments that come across as confident or assertive are made by people who don't really understand what they are talking about. I wouldn't describe everyone's comments that way, and I've got nothing against confidence backed by actual knowledge, but on the whole I think Slashdot would be better off with a dose of humility.